Paul McCartney taking Kurt Cobain's Spot
Options
Replies
-
just have Chris Cornell sing with them....................
:smokin:0 -
Paul might not look like Kirk Cobain, and I really hope he doesn't try to, but he can scream and yowl out songs with the best of them.0
-
I got $50 that says no matter what they do, it will still be better than Nickelback....:laugh:0
-
I'm imagining Paul singing All Apologies and it works in my head.0
-
Can't do any worse than Cobain did, right?
:noway: :grumble: :explode:
:mad: :yawn: :huh:
You love me. Tell me why he's a "god" again?
Not a god, but Nirvana (along with Pearl Jam, et al.) saved rock music from disappearing into the void that it was headed into during the late 80s, early 90s. They reinvented rock music at a time when it was most needed.
I wouldn't go that far, though I guess they did make an impact on the surface of pop culture. I'm sure if it wasn't Nirvana and PJ, it would've been some other bands. There were some pretty fantastic underground bands that were way more influential that most can't name. I really appreciated the grunge fashion scene though.
But I will agree that the huge gap in genres between Sir Paul and Nirvana is going to make for a pretty interesting performance.
The Seattle music scene completely revolutionized rock music, NOT to be confused with "pop" music or pop culture. The Seattle scene changed rock music in the early 90s.
During this time period, I was headed to college, and one of the few who was starting to listen to grunge and dress grunge and appreciate the difference in style after bands like Warrant were becoming parodies of themselves. This was when clubs started doing "alternative nights" (the only night I was willing to go to a club). It was definitely *NOT* a "pop culture" thing until *after* Kurt killed himself. The pop music people hated Nirvana. It was only the hard core rockers/punks/freaks that were into grunge and alternative rock. We were the ones wearing flannel shirts and torn jeans when the "Michael Jackson crowd" was still wearing collared shirts and khakis.
Yes, it wasn't *just* Nirvana or *just* Pearl Jam. It was a whole new scene and a brand new genre. Nirvana gained much notoriety from it. Pearl Jam attempted to completely alter the way concert tickets were sold, which didn't work out. If Nirvana hadn't existed, bands live Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins and Mother Love Bone would still have done the job. (Not to mention RHCP, though they were from L.A. instead of Seattle, they were an alternative to the 80s L.A. scene)
So I will agree that if Nirvana had not existed, the grunge/alternative scene would still have happened. But Nirvana's music was unique even within this scene. Their lyrics and sound were different from the others. (Just like no one compares to Smashing Pumpkins!) They were very special and we lost them way too soon.
We'll agree to disagree, haha. I will say that Nirvana was popular, therefore "pop". As soon as suburban white kids loved them, they became part of "pop culture", not when Kurt blew his brains out. That's when he was deemed a "rock god". If he were still alive they'd most likely be a big joke like Green Day is today. But that's just the nature of the beast.
I just don't appreciate their music. Some do and I won't knock them for it. To each their own. Nirvana was just a face to something revolutionary in music. They, themselves, were not. Cobain was just lucky enough to have good looks and just enough of a drug problem to make him creative and alluring.0 -
No disrespect to Sir Paul McCartney. I respect him in his own right...
But this is so wrong. Just so wrong.0 -
I got $50 that says no matter what they do, it will still be better than Nickelback....:laugh:
Agree
0 -
I got $50 that says no matter what they do, it will still be better than Nickelback....:laugh:
Agree
This!!!!0 -
I got $50 that says no matter what they do, it will still be better than Nickelback....:laugh:
Agree
0 -
Can't do any worse than Cobain did, right?
:noway: :grumble: :explode: :mad: :yawn: :huh:
You love me. Tell me why he's a "god" again?
Not a god, but Nirvana (along with Pearl Jam, et al.) saved rock music from disappearing into the void that it was headed into during the late 80s, early 90s. They reinvented rock music at a time when it was most needed.
I wouldn't go that far, though I guess they did make an impact on the surface of pop culture. I'm sure if it wasn't Nirvana and PJ, it would've been some other bands. There were some pretty fantastic underground bands that were way more influential that most can't name. I really appreciated the grunge fashion scene though.
But I will agree that the huge gap in genres between Sir Paul and Nirvana is going to make for a pretty interesting performance.
The Seattle music scene completely revolutionized rock music, NOT to be confused with "pop" music or pop culture. The Seattle scene changed rock music in the early 90s.
During this time period, I was headed to college, and one of the few who was starting to listen to grunge and dress grunge and appreciate the difference in style after bands like Warrant were becoming parodies of themselves. This was when clubs started doing "alternative nights" (the only night I was willing to go to a club). It was definitely *NOT* a "pop culture" thing until *after* Kurt killed himself. The pop music people hated Nirvana. It was only the hard core rockers/punks/freaks that were into grunge and alternative rock. We were the ones wearing flannel shirts and torn jeans when the "Michael Jackson crowd" was still wearing collared shirts and khakis.
Yes, it wasn't *just* Nirvana or *just* Pearl Jam. It was a whole new scene and a brand new genre. Nirvana gained much notoriety from it. Pearl Jam attempted to completely alter the way concert tickets were sold, which didn't work out. If Nirvana hadn't existed, bands live Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins and Mother Love Bone would still have done the job. (Not to mention RHCP, though they were from L.A. instead of Seattle, they were an alternative to the 80s L.A. scene)
So I will agree that if Nirvana had not existed, the grunge/alternative scene would still have happened. But Nirvana's music was unique even within this scene. Their lyrics and sound were different from the others. (Just like no one compares to Smashing Pumpkins!) They were very special and we lost them way too soon.
We'll agree to disagree, haha. I will say that Nirvana was popular, therefore "pop". As soon as suburban white kids loved them, they became part of "pop culture", not when Kurt blew his brains out. That's when he was deemed a "rock god". If he were still alive they'd most likely be a big joke like Green Day is today. But that's just the nature of the beast.
I just don't appreciate their music. Some do and I won't knock them for it. To each their own. Nirvana was just a face to something revolutionary in music. They, themselves, were not. Cobain was just lucky enough to have good looks and just enough of a drug problem to make him creative and alluring.
Well you were a small child when they came out so....0 -
This.People are taking this WAAAAYYY out of context. It isn't Nirvana - it couldn't be without Kurt - and it isn't supposed to be, it's not being billed that way. . According to the news article:
Surviving members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic haven’t played together in 20 years—save a few one-offs and Novoselic’s appearance on the latest Foo Fighters album—but will perform a new song they’ve been working on with McCartney.
RELAX people, it's only rock 'n' roll! It's a benefit concert to raise money for people affected by Hurricane Sandy, not some crass commercial attack on anyone's sensibilities. You don't like it, don't listen, change the channel and move on. Paul has done some terrible things and he's done some remarkable things over the course of his career. Hell, over the course of the last five years! What if that band tackled Helter Skelter? I bet Dave Grohl would rock that thing to the heavens! And it has been a pretty remarkable piece of Paul's recent live sets, too.
And if you don't think Kurt was a Beatles fan, you're way wrong too. How come no one is saying it's the Beatles with Dave, Krist and Pat taking John, George and Ringo's spots?
Did all of you people come out yelling and screaming when Paul Rogers replaced Freddie Mercury in Queen? Or when Ian Astbury joined up with The Doors? This is not a new thing, sometimes former band members want to play together, and they need a replacement for a member that's died.
Oh, and Alice in Chains, Tool, and Nine Inch Nails did way more for the rebirth of rock music in the 90's than Nirvana. Nirvana (while I am a fan) was a very much mainstream band that was closer to the pop scene than the underground rock scene that they started in, which is (unfortunately) one of the reasons Cobain killed himself, he couldn't handle, nor did he want, mainstream success and popularity.0 -
At least it's not Ringo!0
-
While I could argue the merits of Nirvana being "pop" versus rock revolutionaries (I'm in that camp. They changed my life in the early 90's, long before Smells Like Teen Spirit gained famed), I'll go back to the original news of Paul McCartney replacing Cobain for the night:
1. I appreciate this in artistic theory, because Paul is a legend and a revolutionary in his own right. Stylistically, I have doubts.
2. I can't think of anyone that I'd actually *want* to see replace Kurt Cobain. Ever.
3. I hope this is a one time thing and not a sellout.
4. I still hate Courtney Love.0 -
Can't do any worse than Cobain did, right?
:noway: :grumble: :explode: :mad: :yawn: :huh:
You love me. Tell me why he's a "god" again?
Not a god, but Nirvana (along with Pearl Jam, et al.) saved rock music from disappearing into the void that it was headed into during the late 80s, early 90s. They reinvented rock music at a time when it was most needed.
I wouldn't go that far, though I guess they did make an impact on the surface of pop culture. I'm sure if it wasn't Nirvana and PJ, it would've been some other bands. There were some pretty fantastic underground bands that were way more influential that most can't name. I really appreciated the grunge fashion scene though.
But I will agree that the huge gap in genres between Sir Paul and Nirvana is going to make for a pretty interesting performance.
The Seattle music scene completely revolutionized rock music, NOT to be confused with "pop" music or pop culture. The Seattle scene changed rock music in the early 90s.
During this time period, I was headed to college, and one of the few who was starting to listen to grunge and dress grunge and appreciate the difference in style after bands like Warrant were becoming parodies of themselves. This was when clubs started doing "alternative nights" (the only night I was willing to go to a club). It was definitely *NOT* a "pop culture" thing until *after* Kurt killed himself. The pop music people hated Nirvana. It was only the hard core rockers/punks/freaks that were into grunge and alternative rock. We were the ones wearing flannel shirts and torn jeans when the "Michael Jackson crowd" was still wearing collared shirts and khakis.
Yes, it wasn't *just* Nirvana or *just* Pearl Jam. It was a whole new scene and a brand new genre. Nirvana gained much notoriety from it. Pearl Jam attempted to completely alter the way concert tickets were sold, which didn't work out. If Nirvana hadn't existed, bands live Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins and Mother Love Bone would still have done the job. (Not to mention RHCP, though they were from L.A. instead of Seattle, they were an alternative to the 80s L.A. scene)
So I will agree that if Nirvana had not existed, the grunge/alternative scene would still have happened. But Nirvana's music was unique even within this scene. Their lyrics and sound were different from the others. (Just like no one compares to Smashing Pumpkins!) They were very special and we lost them way too soon.
We'll agree to disagree, haha. I will say that Nirvana was popular, therefore "pop". As soon as suburban white kids loved them, they became part of "pop culture", not when Kurt blew his brains out. That's when he was deemed a "rock god". If he were still alive they'd most likely be a big joke like Green Day is today. But that's just the nature of the beast.
I just don't appreciate their music. Some do and I won't knock them for it. To each their own. Nirvana was just a face to something revolutionary in music. They, themselves, were not. Cobain was just lucky enough to have good looks and just enough of a drug problem to make him creative and alluring.
Well you were a small child when they came out so....
Lol, and that makes you an old fuddy duddy. :laugh:
Great argument.
ETA: Did you hear that? That was the sound of me winning this debate. Oh yeah....
0 -
Well you were a small child when they came out so....
What's your point??0 -
This.People are taking this WAAAAYYY out of context. It isn't Nirvana - it couldn't be without Kurt - and it isn't supposed to be, it's not being billed that way. . According to the news article:
Surviving members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic haven’t played together in 20 years—save a few one-offs and Novoselic’s appearance on the latest Foo Fighters album—but will perform a new song they’ve been working on with McCartney.
RELAX people, it's only rock 'n' roll! It's a benefit concert to raise money for people affected by Hurricane Sandy, not some crass commercial attack on anyone's sensibilities. You don't like it, don't listen, change the channel and move on. Paul has done some terrible things and he's done some remarkable things over the course of his career. Hell, over the course of the last five years! What if that band tackled Helter Skelter? I bet Dave Grohl would rock that thing to the heavens! And it has been a pretty remarkable piece of Paul's recent live sets, too.
And if you don't think Kurt was a Beatles fan, you're way wrong too. How come no one is saying it's the Beatles with Dave, Krist and Pat taking John, George and Ringo's spots?
Did all of you people come out yelling and screaming when Paul Rogers replaced Freddie Mercury in Queen? Or when Ian Astbury joined up with The Doors? This is not a new thing, sometimes former band members want to play together, and they need a replacement for a member that's died.
Oh, and Alice in Chains, Tool, and Nine Inch Nails did way more for the rebirth of rock music in the 90's than Nirvana. Nirvana (while I am a fan) was a very much mainstream band that was closer to the pop scene than the underground rock scene that they started in, which is (unfortunately) one of the reasons Cobain killed himself, he couldn't handle, nor did he want, mainstream success and popularity.
Tool, YES!
Alice in Chains, YES!
NIN, :smokin: Double yes!
And you kinda made my point with this because my original point was being UNIQUE. All of these bands, along with the others that I mentioned, were unique, not the cookie-cutter-corporate-rock that was completely drowning the rock genre. The idea of being different was embraced. :flowerforyou:0 -
Well you were a small child when they came out so....
What's your point??
Little kids don't even find out about things until they become pop culture. Your memory is also a bit fuzzier later when you are trying to remember something that happened when you were a kid, vs remembering something that happened when you were an adult.0 -
Can't do any worse than Cobain did, right?
:noway: :grumble: :explode: :mad: :yawn: :huh:
You love me. Tell me why he's a "god" again?
Not a god, but Nirvana (along with Pearl Jam, et al.) saved rock music from disappearing into the void that it was headed into during the late 80s, early 90s. They reinvented rock music at a time when it was most needed.
I wouldn't go that far, though I guess they did make an impact on the surface of pop culture. I'm sure if it wasn't Nirvana and PJ, it would've been some other bands. There were some pretty fantastic underground bands that were way more influential that most can't name. I really appreciated the grunge fashion scene though.
But I will agree that the huge gap in genres between Sir Paul and Nirvana is going to make for a pretty interesting performance.
The Seattle music scene completely revolutionized rock music, NOT to be confused with "pop" music or pop culture. The Seattle scene changed rock music in the early 90s.
During this time period, I was headed to college, and one of the few who was starting to listen to grunge and dress grunge and appreciate the difference in style after bands like Warrant were becoming parodies of themselves. This was when clubs started doing "alternative nights" (the only night I was willing to go to a club). It was definitely *NOT* a "pop culture" thing until *after* Kurt killed himself. The pop music people hated Nirvana. It was only the hard core rockers/punks/freaks that were into grunge and alternative rock. We were the ones wearing flannel shirts and torn jeans when the "Michael Jackson crowd" was still wearing collared shirts and khakis.
Yes, it wasn't *just* Nirvana or *just* Pearl Jam. It was a whole new scene and a brand new genre. Nirvana gained much notoriety from it. Pearl Jam attempted to completely alter the way concert tickets were sold, which didn't work out. If Nirvana hadn't existed, bands live Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins and Mother Love Bone would still have done the job. (Not to mention RHCP, though they were from L.A. instead of Seattle, they were an alternative to the 80s L.A. scene)
So I will agree that if Nirvana had not existed, the grunge/alternative scene would still have happened. But Nirvana's music was unique even within this scene. Their lyrics and sound were different from the others. (Just like no one compares to Smashing Pumpkins!) They were very special and we lost them way too soon.
We'll agree to disagree, haha. I will say that Nirvana was popular, therefore "pop". As soon as suburban white kids loved them, they became part of "pop culture", not when Kurt blew his brains out. That's when he was deemed a "rock god". If he were still alive they'd most likely be a big joke like Green Day is today. But that's just the nature of the beast.
I just don't appreciate their music. Some do and I won't knock them for it. To each their own. Nirvana was just a face to something revolutionary in music. They, themselves, were not. Cobain was just lucky enough to have good looks and just enough of a drug problem to make him creative and alluring.
Well you were a small child when they came out so....
Lol, and that makes you an old fuddy duddy. :laugh:
Great argument.
ETA: Did you hear that? That was the sound of me winning this debate. Oh yeah....
:laugh:
Hey, I got called a crazy old woman the other day in these forums. That's cool. I'm proud of my experiences.0 -
That was the sound of me winning this debate.
Were we debating? Interesting. I thought I was just helping out a youngling sort through the facts. :laugh:0 -
Lol, and that makes you an old fuddy duddy. :laugh:
Great argument.
ETA: Did you hear that? That was the sound of me winning this debate. Oh yeah....
omg hahahahha 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions